The experimental group improved significantly from pre-test to post-test after co-operative learning¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2010 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? The experimental group's achievement mean rose significantly from pre-test to post-test after co-operative learning (t = 9.32 > 1.96). → Singaravelu 2010
Evidence¶
Singaravelu 2010¶
G. Singaravelu. (2010). Impact of Co-operative Learning Strategies in English. i-manager's Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 4, No. 2, August-October 2010. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1102270
q2 · i? · causal · r1
Table 3 reports the experimental group's pre-test mean 14.39 (SD 3.68) and post-test mean 18.12 (SD 3.02); the article prints only the t-value, no effect size, and reports "null hypothesis is rejected at 0.05 levels".
"The calculated ‘t' value is (9.32) greater than table value (1.96). Hence null hypothesis is rejected at 0.05 levels."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Co-operative learning produces significantly higher English grammar achievement than conventional methods in secondary students — related
- Conventional grammar teaching produced no significant pre-to-post change in the control group — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.